LexSH. MALAPRABHA CO-OP., SUGAR FACTORY LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. SH. MALAPRABHA CO-OP., SUGAR FACTORY LTD. A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. JANUARY 28, 1997 [S.C. AGRA\YAL, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND·. B G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] Essential Commodities Act, 1955/Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966: S.3(3-C)!Clause SA-Directions issued by Supreme Court to the C Government of India to take into account the liability of the manufacturer as regards cane price and refix the price of levy sugm~Doubt or confusion raised in the Review Petition is the result of wiwillingness of the Govemment to gi,ve up its views and accept and implement the said decision-Order passed in respect of levy sugar price for the year 1982-83 could not have any bearing on the f!Xation of p1ice of levy sugar for the years 1975-76 to 1979-8o-Matter not D covered by the decision in Malaprabha: Shri Malaprabha Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., (1994] 1 SCC 648, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 5-6 of 1995. In Civil Appeal Nos. 122-123 of 1981. From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.80 of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. Nos. 427 and 440 of 1980. E F F.S. Nariman, N.N. Goswami, P.H. Parekh, Ms. Sunita Sharmil, Subhash Sharma, D.M. Popat, C.V. Subba Rao, T.C. Sharma, D.S. Mehra, Ranjit Kumar, Praveen Kumar, Rajiv Dutta, Indeevar Goodwill, S.K. G Dingra, C.S. Srinivasa Rao, G. Narasimhulu, Aruneshwar Gupta, K.P. Gupta, A.K. Goel, G.I. Gopalkrishnan, M. Qamaruddin, Pradeep Misra, · _,. S. Ravindra Bhat, Ravindra Bana, Pramod Dayal, Ms. Geetanajali Mohan and K.L. Mehta for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered : 641 H 642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 1 S.C.R. A A batch of civil appeals (including the above mentioned two ap- peals), special leave petitions, writ petitions, transfer petitions and trans- ferred cases challenging the fixation of price of levy sugar for the years 1974-75 to 1979-80, by orders issued under Section 3(3-C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was disposed of by this Court by a common B judgment dated 22.9.93. This Court held that the impugned orders/notifica- tions were bad as the price was not fixed in accqrdance with the relevant provisions of law. However, it did not quash the notifications as they would have led to nebulous situation during the interregnum till re-fixation of price. Instead of quashing the said notifications it directed the Union of India to amend the notifications taking into account the liability of C producers of sugar under clause SA of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the '1966 Order'), having regard to the factors mentioned in Section 3(3-C) of the Act. The Government was also directed to issue the amended notifications by December 31, 1993. The union of India was not satisfied with the judgment and, there- D fore, filed Review Peti,ion Nos. 211 and 212 of 1994 on 15.11.93. They were dismissed on 23.2.94. The Union of India had also filed an application on 24.12.93 for directions/clarifications and extension of time. The clarification was sought for on the follmving ground: E F "It is submitted that the decision of this Hon'ble Court lends itself to two different interpretations as mentioned below : (a) The amount of additional cane price payable by sugar factories at the end of each season is to be added to the SMP of Sugarcane while computing the element of cost as per Factor 'A' of Section 3(3-C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for purposes of price fixation; (b) The levy sugar prices may be ref1Xed taking into account only Factors 'A' to 'D' of Section 3(3-C) of the Essential Com- G modities Act, 1955." It wanted this Court to clarify : " ...... whether the revised levy sugar price should be the sum total of Factors 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' of Section 3(3-C) of the EC Act in H case of price fixation." \ ... ,,__ ' .. • -J. MALAPRABHACO-OP.,SUGARFACTORY v. U.O.I. 643 The application was dismissed with costs but the time for im- A plementation of the judgment was extended upto November 30, 1994 peremptorily. In spite of this direction the Government did not issue the required notifications within time. It issued the following six notifica- tions on 22.2.9S : 1. No. GSR 76(E)/Ess. Com./Sugar dt. 22.2.1995 - 1974-75. B 2. No. GSR 77(E)/Ess. Com./Sugar dt. 22.2.1995 - 1975-76. 3. No. GSR 78(E)/Ess. Com./Sugar dt. 22.2.1995 - 1976-77. 4. No. GSR 79(E)/Ess. Com./Sugar dt. 22.2.1995 - 197
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.